3 ms·

> People that still really need disposable plastic can still buy it if they need it that much. In other words, there is a price equilibrium where the cost of p

> People that still really need disposable plastic can still buy it if they need it that much. In other words, there is a price equilibrium where the cost of plastic pollution to society is less than the revenue generated by plastic goods consumption. Your theory is correct, but you're not taking into account that, in Delhi, it's far easier (read: cheaper) to enforce a ban on the sale/use than it is to ensure tax compliance. Delhi proper is twice the population of Colorado, and the metro area has four times the population of Colorado. Combine that with a relatively porous implementation of laws, and it's just way easier to go for a complete ban.

wallace_f 10y ago
>Your theory is correct, but you're not taking into account that, in Delhi, it's far easier (read: cheaper) to enforce a ban on the sale/use than it is to ensure tax compliance. I don't want to believe it, but unfortunately I think you are correct. Too many times utopian policies are made unrealistic by human nature.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > Too many times utopian policies are made unrealistic by human nature Agreed. But a less cynical way of thinking about it: Just think of it as a second-order model, with an additional equilibrium factor to consider. What is the cost of complying with the policy, traded off against the risk and expense of getting caught? That's not actually a factor unique to Delhi; it just happens that the risk of getting caught and the expected expense[0] is a lot less than the expected risk/cost of getting caught for not paying Colorado sales and excise taxes on marijuana. [0] which can include social engineering or bribery
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    > Just think of it as a second-order model, with an additional equilibrium factor to consider. I think that has clear, pragmatic value. That's the perspective which exists in academic economics. However, I feel that there has to be some point where we just have had enough and say, people need to stop being so awful? Or, at the end of the other side of the spectrum, perhaps we should live in a world where everyone is legally selling each other their organs--there's a balance in there somewhere where we need to have a certain faith in humanity.

wallace_f 10y ago

>Your theory is correct, but you're not taking into account that, in Delhi, it's far easier (read: cheaper) to enforce a ban on the sale/use than it is to ensure tax compliance. I don't want to believe it, but unfortunately I think you are correct. Too many times utopian policies are made unrealistic by human nature.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> Too many times utopian policies are made unrealistic by human nature Agreed. But a less cynical way of thinking about it: Just think of it as a second-order model, with an additional equilibrium factor to consider. What is the cost of complying with the policy, traded off against the risk and expense of getting caught? That's not actually a factor unique to Delhi; it just happens that the risk of getting caught and the expected expense[0] is a lot less than the expected risk/cost of getting caught for not paying Colorado sales and excise taxes on marijuana. [0] which can include social engineering or bribery
- wallace_f 10y ago
  > Just think of it as a second-order model, with an additional equilibrium factor to consider. I think that has clear, pragmatic value. That's the perspective which exists in academic economics. However, I feel that there has to be some point where we just have had enough and say, people need to stop being so awful? Or, at the end of the other side of the spectrum, perhaps we should live in a world where everyone is legally selling each other their organs--there's a balance in there somewhere where we need to have a certain faith in humanity.